REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Finally...something that explains PirateNews (and or liberals).

POSTED BY: HERO
UPDATED: Monday, August 13, 2007 16:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1798
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, August 9, 2007 7:31 AM

HERO


Came across this article. Explains how smart, upright types like myself were around right about the same time as the slack-jawed drooping forehead types like PirateNews (and the entire staff of MSNBC).

Quote:


Fossils challenge old evoluton theory By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Wed Aug 8, 5:57 PM ET



Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.

It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.

Dr. Bernard Wood, a surgeon-turned-professor of human origins at George Washington University, said in an e-mail Wednesday that "this is only a skirmish in the protracted 'war' between the people who like a bushy interpretation and those who like a more ladder-like interpretation of early human evolution."

Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history. That's especially true of most immediate ancestor, Homo erectus.

Because the Homo erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of malformation or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't Homo habilis from several distinct features on the jaw.

That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said Anton. Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.

Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primates that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.

This suggests that our ancestor Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

The Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 7:41 AM

RIVERISMYGODDESS


This makes me think of the HitchHiker's Guide, with the Golgafrinchans and the natives of the giant computer known as Earth.

Maybe Douglas Adams was on to something?

~jimi
I'm gonna show you a little trick that mom showed me when you weren't around. It was for special events just like this. Oh yeah, one more thing...I'm glad you changed your last name, you son of a bitch!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 8:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Compare Frem's take on liberty and safety to ZERO's www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29925

ZERO: Just another gutless wonder.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 8:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Hero"

"Came across this article. Explains how smart, upright types like myself were around right about the same time as the slack-jawed drooping forehead types like PirateNews (and the entire staff of MSNBC)."

It's soooo far off you're a parody of yourself. And that's not a pretty sight.

One too many drinky-poohs for lunch today ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 8:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

One too many drinky-poohs for lunch today?
And it's not even Friday.

---------------------------------
I'll have whatever he's having. It makes everything all... bendy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 9:14 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Came across this article. Explains how smart, upright types like myself were around right about the same time as the slack-jawed drooping forehead types like PirateNews (and the entire staff of MSNBC


Don't forget about the biggest knuckle dragger of them all our commander in chief! He comes complete with the undersized cranial capacity and monkey like looks.....and behavior too!

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 10:23 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Interesting read Hero, almost as interesting as the other posts in this thread.
Any science minded people care to comment?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 10:49 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Any science minded people care to comment?



Doesn't mean a whole lot, just a minor revision to the family tree. Evolution doesn't say that a species must die off when speciation occurs so the fact that two different hominid species lived at the same time is no big deal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 11:13 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


This is an idea that's been out there for, as I recall, over 10 years. But scientists, being sticklers for data, didn't want to commit to this perfectly reasonable supposition until they had actual evidence in hand.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 11:26 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Doesn't mean a whole lot, just a minor revision to the family tree. Evolution doesn't say that a species must die off when speciation occurs so the fact that two different hominid species lived at the same time is no big deal.


Cool. So Habilis found themselves unable to adapt and died off while Erectus thrived. Or did Erectus kill off those pansy vegans and eat them.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 12:37 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Or did Erectus kill off those pansy vegans and eat them.

Yooz in mah thread, stealin moi lines!

Dammit I was gonna say that, bwahahahaha.
Mmm.. grain-fed vegans, and free-range too... tasty....*slurp*

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 9, 2007 1:32 PM

DAVESHAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Cool. So Habilis found themselves unable to adapt and died off while Erectus thrived. Or did Erectus kill off those pansy vegans and eat them.



Amounts to the same thing really.

David

"Looks like we got here just in the nick of time."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:54 AM

FLETCH2


I think the crux of this discovery is that the two species overlapped for several thousand years and that suggests that they exploited different niches. Up until now the theory has been that as more advanced forms evolved they replaced their ancestors in the same niche.

So if the replacement theory is correct these two can't be directly related (and must be sister species) however the alternative is that the replacement theory itself is wrong. I'm assuming that the delay between the discovery of the bones and the current announcement represents attempts to find more data to either validate or invalidate the replacement theory on this site.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 11:48 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think the crux of this discovery is that the two species overlapped for several thousand years and that suggests that they exploited different niches. Up until now the theory has been that as more advanced forms evolved they replaced their ancestors in the same niche.



For the most part they do, however new mutations can change things, the first creature able to stay on land permanently got a whole new niche from it's predecessors, an herbivorous or carnivorous species that evolves capacity for omnivorous activity can get a new niche.

Quote:

So if the replacement theory is correct these two can't be directly related (and must be sister species) however the alternative is that the replacement theory itself is wrong.


Not necessarily, allopatric speciation allows for the "parent" species and "child" species to exist at the same time, then instead of converting the present population the new species would have to outcompete gradually.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 11:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One of the best explanations for this was proposed by a Naval geologist (whose name I forget) who studied the Afar Triangle as a hobby. Apparently, it was disconnected and reconnected to the mainland several times. His theory was that the "hotbed" of evolution was on an island that would occasionally connect to the mainland, allowing the next "revision" to colonize the mainland, and that we should expect to see several hominid lines living in proximity.

DNA evidence proposes something else: that hominids and chimps diverged and then recrossed at some later date, only to diverge for good.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 1:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Hmm, that last part might explain where these knuckle-draggin trogs come from...

Guess some of their ancestors are still swingin FROM the family tree, eh ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 2:50 PM

HERO


Folks, I intend to lay this matter to rest
for once and for all time.

Perhaps there are those among you who
think that you are descended from an ape.

I suppose it's possible there are those of you...who believe that I'm descended from an ape, but...

I challenge the man to step forward...who believes that the late great President Ronanld Reagan is descended from an ape.

Yes, I have seen Bedtime for Bonzo (1951)...there was no resemblence.

H





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


What about Bush and chimps ? I see a strong family resemblance.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:17 PM

ANTIMASON





Quote:


Fossils challenge old evoluton theory By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Wed Aug 8, 5:57 PM ET

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years.



makes sense to me too... man was created uniquely, to evolve within our own 'archetype'

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"makes sense to me too... man was created uniquely, to evolve within our own 'archetype'" Yeah, just like whales. Oh wait, they weren't either. Never mind.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:52 PM

ANTIMASON


you know youre right, i shouldnt be so stubborn.. its not like we need fossil evidence or anything; simple theoretical speculation should suffice

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:02 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Yeah, just like whales. Oh wait, they weren't either. Never mind.



and where is your evidence? because its a mammal? has it occurred to you that it was 'designed' as an aquatic mammal? we have never found any kind of transitional fossil of a land mammal becoming a whale, mainly because the physical changes would have left in entirely susceptible to selection(like the loss of a pelvic structure).

that belief is entirely an inference of your hypothesis

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:04 PM

DAVESHAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I challenge the man to step forward...who believes that the late great President Ronanld Reagan is descended from an ape.



You're right! Calling Reagan an ape is an insult to the apes. Which, by the by, humans are. Apes that is. Anybody who says any different doesn't understand humans or doesn't understand apes or, more likely, doesn't understand either.

David

"Looks like we got here just in the nick of time."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 10, 2007 4:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


AntiM

You know, for as many times as people have posted the link actually showing the fossil record land mammal -> whale; despite the fact that genetic research has shown it takes silencing one gene to suppress all limb development in whales ... and reactivating the gene causes limbs to develop in whales ... you'd think by now you'd have given up saying that. Doesn't your religion teach you it's wrong to lie ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 11, 2007 3:05 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Rue-
AntiM

You know, for as many times as people have posted the link actually showing the fossil record land mammal -> whale;



you mean the artists rendering? have you taken a look at the actual fossil pics? clearly a lot of.. imagination.. went into that aspect of your theory

Quote:

despite the fact that genetic research has shown it takes silencing one gene to suppress all limb development in whales ... and reactivating the gene causes limbs to develop in whales ...


do we know whether this gene was 'silenced' while the species was still a land mammal(or did it occur over time)? i just want to know how you envision the process to have taken place, since the changes are beyond(what i would consider)micro evolutionary

Quote:

you'd think by now you'd have given up saying that. Doesn't your religion teach you it's wrong to lie ?


its not lying when no one knows the real truth

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 12, 2007 3:19 AM

LEADB


Anti,
Can you provide a link to a description as to what is supposed to be in what archetypes? For instance, are house cats in the same archetype as lions?

Also, you maintain that humans are their own archetype, distinct from the 'primates', such as chimpanzee. Conventional evolutionary study believes it is highly likely that Homo sapiens evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, a now extinct species.

If you'd like to see a bit about this particular species, you can read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

Would Homo heidelbergensis be in the 'human' archetype or not? If yes, then it is reasonalbe to state from your creationist perspective that homo sapiens -may- have evolved from Homo heidelbergensis? If no, then it is reasonable to state that from your creationist perspective that homo sapeiens did -not- evolve from Homo heidelbergensis? Willing to take a stand on that one?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 12, 2007 12:04 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Interesting read Hero, almost as interesting as the other posts in this thread.
Any science minded people care to comment?



Not that I'm really qualified. It's been along time since I took any paleontolgy. I have about 24 or so combinted undergraduate and graduate credits in paleontology and evolution course work. None of it dealing with human evolution. That said, the most important statement in this article is strictly about the scientific proccess. Basically that the find doesn't disprove the theory of human evolution but (if it stands)serves to clarify part of the early time frame.

Second, mistakes happen and it's easy to misidentify a fossil or get the stratigraphy wrong. Specifically, if I found two fossils in the same strata that (based on previous work)weren't suppose to be there, I'd look at that strata very carefully. It could be a situation where the rock was reworked and material from two or more unrelated beds were combined. If that was not the case I would look at the fossil that doesn't seem to belong very carefully and ask, "Is this really what I think it is?" The fossil could have been altered or poorly preserved. Other things to do would be double check the dating information and look at the other fossils found in the bed, are they all concurrent with the older fossil or is it a mixed bag of things that don't seemingly relate.

Last, there's always the problem of fraud or someone trying to manipulate findings by planting or seeding and area with fossils.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 13, 2007 4:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"clearly a lot of.. imagination.. went into that aspect of your theory" (fossil record of land animals -> whale)

OK, show me actual photos of the fossils and tell me where they are wrong. (I'm betting myself you can't do it b/c you're running on hand-waving and thin air on this one.)



"do we know whether this gene was 'silenced' while the species was still a land mammal(or did it occur over time)?"

Whales had (and can have) vestigial limbs, reduced over eons by microevolution. The last change - complete elimination of limbs - occurred with gene silencing.



"its not lying when no one knows the real truth"

If we are talking about the difference between red and deep pink, or red and red-orange, there's always a certain amount of slop for opinion. If we are talking about the difference between red and green, then it gets to be, yes -- a lie.
Specifically you said "we have never found any kind of transitional fossil of a land mammal becoming a whale ..." when in fact, there are many transitional forms. More importantly, they are sequential, showing progressive changes that go in one direction over time.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 21:40 - 495 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 21:25 - 981 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL